tendency, denial of a
human soul to Christ, and the like, which suggest not indeed Arianism
but an inclination towards Arianism. Above all, his polemic is directed
against the dying heresies of the 3rd century; and he writes with an
absence of constraint which is not the language of one who lives amidst
violent controversies or who is conscious of being in a minority. All
this points to the position of a "conservative" or semi-Arian of the
East, one who belongs, perhaps, to the circle of Lucian of Antioch and
writes before the time of Julian. It is hard to think of any other time
or circumstances in which a man could write like this, (iii.) The
indications of _time_ have been held to point to a different conclusion.
On the one hand, the fact that the attempt to rebuild the temple by
Julian in 363 is not mentioned in vi. 24 points to an earlier date; and
the fact that the [Greek: kopiatai] are not mentioned amongst the church
officers points in the same direction, for elsewhere they are first
mentioned in a rescript of Constantius in A.D. 357. On the other hand,
in the cycle of feasts occur the names of several which are probably of
later date--e.g. Christmas and St Stephen, which were introduced at
Antioch c. A.D. 378 and 379 respectively. Again, Epiphanius (c. A.D.
374) appears to be unacquainted with it; he still quotes from the
_Didascalia_, and elaborately explains it away where it is contrary to
the usages of his own day. But as regards the former point, it is
possible that the Apostolical Constitutions constantly gave rise to
these festivals; or, on the other hand, that the two passages were
subsequently introduced either by the writer himself or by some other
hand, when the last book of the Constitutions was being used as a
law-book. And as regards the latter, the fact that Epiphanius does not
use the Constitutions is no proof that they had not yet been compiled.
(iv.) As to the region of composition there is no real doubt. It was
clearly the East, Syria or Palestine. Many indications are against the
latter, and Syria is strongly suggested by the use of the
Syro-Macedonian calendar. Moreover, the writer represents the Roman
Clement as the channel of communication between the apostles and the
Church. This fact both supplies him with the name by which he is
commonly known, Pseudo-Clement, and also furnishes corroboration of his
Syrian birth; since the other spurious writings bearing the name of
Clement, the _Homili